Would it be so difficult to add a "groupinfo" table? Just like you have /etc/passwords you have /etc/groups so should you have userinfo and radgroup or groupinfo or somesuch. Namely, there is an awful kludge in radgroupreply in that if a a reply with a group name exists then the group exists, otherwise it doesn't. Now that's funny, it's the same thing as saying if there is an entry in radcheck then the user exists, otherwise they don't. Which is silly. Not only in my opinion but in the the opinion of all database people out there. Referential integrity is non-existent. So is entity-integrity. A simple statement like this in your sql scripts would suffice (mysql exaple here) DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `groupinfo`; CREATE TABLE `groupinfo` ( `id` bigint(20) NOT NULL auto_increment, `groupname` varchar(200) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY name (`groupname`) ); Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc. Try and create a radgroupreply for group "Normal", say a bandwidth limitation of some sort. Then add another limitation but this time make an intentional typo and put in "nOrmal" in groupname instead. What happens? If you had referential integrity the database wouldn't let you make such mistaks. Just like this silly gmail webmail won't let me make mistakes and underlines them with a red squiggly line. I'm saying all this because I'm writing a freeradius frontend (there, that stupid red squiggly line again) - I'll probably call it dialUpAdmin# as I'm using NHibernate, mono, asp.net2 and it's going nice; I'll try and submit the initial version to the cvs (or is it svn) repository sometime next week - and silliness like this pops up everywhere. Some simple referential and entity integrity never hurt no one. I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice. Best regards, Pele
predrag balorda wrote:
Would it be so difficult to add a "groupinfo" table? Just like you have /etc/passwords you have /etc/groups so should you have userinfo and radgroup or groupinfo or somesuch. Namely, there is an awful kludge in radgroupreply in that if a a reply with a group name exists then the group exists, otherwise it doesn't.
? The reply is allowed to be empty. If it is empty, it has no effect on group membership.
Now that's funny, it's the same thing as saying if there is an entry in radcheck then the user exists, otherwise they don't. Which is silly. Not only in my opinion but in the the opinion of all database people out there. Referential integrity is non-existent. So is entity-integrity.
I have no idea what that means.
A simple statement like this in your sql scripts would suffice (mysql exaple here)
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `groupinfo`; CREATE TABLE `groupinfo` ( `id` bigint(20) NOT NULL auto_increment, `groupname` varchar(200) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY name (`groupname`) );
Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc.
Sure. That's useful, but not required. I've seen 7 figure commercial solutions with *less* referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema.
Try and create a radgroupreply for group "Normal", say a bandwidth limitation of some sort. Then add another limitation but this time make an intentional typo and put in "nOrmal" in groupname instead. What happens? If you had referential integrity the database wouldn't let you make such mistaks. Just like this silly gmail webmail won't let me make mistakes and underlines them with a red squiggly line.
You can supply a patch to the SQL schema && statements to add this capability. The software *is* open source.
I'm saying all this because I'm writing a freeradius frontend (there, that stupid red squiggly line again) - I'll probably call it dialUpAdmin# as I'm using NHibernate, mono, asp.net2 and it's going nice; I'll try and submit the initial version to the cvs (or is it svn) repository sometime next week
'git'.
- and silliness like this pops up everywhere. Some simple referential and entity integrity never hurt no one.
Sure. But it's one more requirement before people get the server up and running.
I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice.
As always, patches are welcome. Alan DeKok.
Ok, I said to myself we're grownups, we have to think things through. But then if you didn't I sure as hell ain't! On 8 July 2010 16:16, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
predrag balorda wrote:
Would it be so difficult to add a "groupinfo" table? Just like you have /etc/passwords you have /etc/groups so should you have userinfo and radgroup or groupinfo or somesuch. Namely, there is an awful kludge in radgroupreply in that if a a reply with a group name exists then the group exists, otherwise it doesn't.
? The reply is allowed to be empty. If it is empty, it has no effect on group membership.
Yes and if it's empty there _is no_ group membership as the group doesn't even exist.
Now that's funny, it's the same thing as saying if there is an entry in radcheck then the user exists, otherwise they don't. Which is silly. Not only in my opinion but in the the opinion of all database people out there. Referential integrity is non-existent. So is entity-integrity.
I have no idea what that means.
Well, read it, over and over again, until you do.
A simple statement like this in your sql scripts would suffice (mysql exaple here)
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `groupinfo`; CREATE TABLE `groupinfo` ( `id` bigint(20) NOT NULL auto_increment, `groupname` varchar(200) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY name (`groupname`) );
Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc.
Sure. That's useful, but not required.
Useful but not required? Interesting postulate. Then all my rdbms professors were and everything I know about rdbms is wrong, I guess....
I've seen 7 figure commercial solutions with *less* referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema.
I haven't _seen_ those, per se, but I have _worked_ on some that were 7, 8 and 9 figure commercial solutions with less and more referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema. What are you trying to do? Impress me? Or say that if some XYZ company doesn't do it then it's not worth doing? So if Microsoft doesn't check for buffer underruns and overflows in their code it isn't worth implementing in your FreeRADIUS code? Again, interesting postulate. I'll have to go read up a bit on that.
Try and create a radgroupreply for group "Normal", say a bandwidth limitation of some sort. Then add another limitation but this time make an intentional typo and put in "nOrmal" in groupname instead. What happens? If you had referential integrity the database wouldn't let you make such mistaks. Just like this silly gmail webmail won't let me make mistakes and underlines them with a red squiggly line.
You can supply a patch to the SQL schema && statements to add this capability. The software *is* open source.
I just did!
I'm saying all this because I'm writing a freeradius frontend (there, that stupid red squiggly line again) - I'll probably call it dialUpAdmin# as I'm using NHibernate, mono, asp.net2 and it's going nice; I'll try and submit the initial version to the cvs (or is it svn) repository sometime next week
'git'. 'pufter'
- and silliness like this pops up everywhere. Some simple referential and entity integrity never hurt no one.
Sure. But it's one more requirement before people get the server up and running.
Yes, and one more thing to stop the server from keeling over. And one more thing to stop the server from replying with crap information. And one more thing to stop people from making mistakes. And one more thing to stop people from loosing account information. And one more thing to make code easier to read and understand. And one more thing to make bug-finding easier. And one more thing to increase performance. And one more thing to reduce database size. And and and....
I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice.
As always, patches are welcome.
Again, I just did!
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
Ok, and now seriously. I'll look into your schema and see what can be done. I've already begun modifying it as I go along. Would you prefer a set of simple statements to create tables or would you rather alter existing ones? I think altering existing ones would make all hell break loose, but I can try?! Best regards, Pele
predrag balorda wrote:
Well, read it, over and over again, until you do.
A useful suggestion, I'm sure.
Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc. Sure. That's useful, but not required.
Useful but not required? Interesting postulate. Then all my rdbms professors were and everything I know about rdbms is wrong, I guess....
Practice != theory I've seen situations where referential integrity can be enforced by the provisioning tools that write to SQL. This gets the benefit of the integrity without the complicating the SQL tables. And it can give a 2x performance gain. Real world, not theory.
I haven't _seen_ those, per se, but I have _worked_ on some that were 7, 8 and 9 figure commercial solutions with less and more referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema. What are you trying to do? Impress me? Or say that if some XYZ company doesn't do it then it's not worth doing?
Read my response until you understand it.
So if Microsoft doesn't check for buffer underruns and overflows in their code it isn't worth implementing in your FreeRADIUS code? Again, interesting postulate. I'll have to go read up a bit on that.
Ah, yes. If you can't have a rational discussion, invent an irrational one, and accuse the other guy of being irrational.
svn) repository sometime next week
'git'. 'pufter'
That comment is either ignorance ('git' is a revision control system), or is a deliberate attempt to be an idiot.
Yes, and one more thing to stop the server from keeling over.
Nonsense. The server has *never* died or failed because of a lack of referential integrity in SQL. The server simply returns the data you *told* it to send, instead of the data you *wanted* it to send. This is *not* a problem with the server. It's a problem with the administrator.
And one more thing to stop the server from replying with crap information. And one more thing to stop people from making mistakes. And one more thing to stop people from loosing account information. And one more thing to make code easier to read and understand. And one more thing to make bug-finding easier. And one more thing to increase performance. And one more thing to reduce database size. And and and....
And one more thing for people to get wrong. And one more step for people to take before they can add data to the tables. And one more performance hit. And... There's a practical thing called "real-world trade-off". Or "cost and benefits". It's not as black & white as you seem to believe.
I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice. As always, patches are welcome.
Again, I just did!
No. You posted a simple schema that is *unrelated* to the existing ones. You then waved your hands saying "yeah, someone else can update the schemas to use this one." And then you get snarky when I ask you to post a more useful patch...
Ok, and now seriously.
Ah... thanks for wasting my time with wise-ass comments.
I'll look into your schema and see what can be done. I've already begun modifying it as I go along. Would you prefer a set of simple statements to create tables or would you rather alter existing ones? I think altering existing ones would make all hell break loose, but I can try?!
You're the SQL expert. You figure it out. And my opinions in the matter are from real-world experience. I am very, very wary of "database experts" doing "database optimizations". They nearly always fail in the real world. The "database experts" then say "it's not our fault", and the poor RADIUS admins are left to clean up the pieces. I *don't* have a lot of respect for much of the fascination with SQL referential integrity. It's useful, but just one tool that can be used. Alan DeKok.
On 9 July 2010 17:54, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
predrag balorda wrote:
Well, read it, over and over again, until you do.
A useful suggestion, I'm sure.
It is, indeed.
Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc. Sure. That's useful, but not required.
Useful but not required? Interesting postulate. Then all my rdbms professors were and everything I know about rdbms is wrong, I guess....
Practice != theory
Practice == theory, it's just that your Practice != longEnough. Tsk.
I've seen situations where referential integrity can be enforced by the provisioning tools that write to SQL. This gets the benefit of the integrity without the complicating the SQL tables.
And it can give a 2x performance gain. Real world, not theory.
I'm sure that's true. Let's all go find tools to do the work for us since we are brain-dead and can't be arsed to follow some simple rules set-out 50 years beforehand. Because we have "Practice". 1337.
I haven't _seen_ those, per se, but I have _worked_ on some that were 7, 8 and 9 figure commercial solutions with less and more referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema. What are you trying to do? Impress me? Or say that if some XYZ company doesn't do it then it's not worth doing?
Read my response until you understand it.
I did, perfectly. My eyes glazed over.
So if Microsoft doesn't check for buffer underruns and overflows in their code it isn't worth implementing in your FreeRADIUS code? Again, interesting postulate. I'll have to go read up a bit on that.
Ah, yes. If you can't have a rational discussion, invent an irrational one, and accuse the other guy of being irrational.
Proves my point again. Let's all go out and find tools because 7 figure companies don't do it why should we.
svn) repository sometime next week
'git'. 'pufter'
That comment is either ignorance ('git' is a revision control system), or is a deliberate attempt to be an idiot.
Yes, and one more thing to stop the server from keeling over.
Nonsense. The server has *never* died or failed because of a lack of referential integrity in SQL. The server simply returns the data you *told* it to send, instead of the data you *wanted* it to send.
This is *not* a problem with the server. It's a problem with the administrator.
Ah right, another BOFH to keep us amused. Nope, sorry, Simon did it 15 years ago. Been there, done that.
And one more thing to stop the server from replying with crap information. And one more thing to stop people from making mistakes. And one more thing to stop people from loosing account information. And one more thing to make code easier to read and understand. And one more thing to make bug-finding easier. And one more thing to increase performance. And one more thing to reduce database size. And and and....
And one more thing for people to get wrong. And one more step for people to take before they can add data to the tables. And one more performance hit. And... Nope, you lost me there. How does, exactle, referential integrity stop someone from adding data to a table? Huh? How does referential integrity impart a performance hit in a _negative_ sense? Erm, yes, keep taking those pills.
There's a practical thing called "real-world trade-off". Or "cost and benefits". It's not as black & white as you seem to believe.
I know, I practically invented the term. 0 is black, 1 is white. Sorry but that's the world of computer science to you and me. There is no gray area, everything has been invented, you just have to apply it.
I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice. As always, patches are welcome.
Again, I just did!
No.
You posted a simple schema that is *unrelated* to the existing ones. You then waved your hands saying "yeah, someone else can update the schemas to use this one."
And then you get snarky when I ask you to post a more useful patch...
Ok, and now seriously.
Ah... thanks for wasting my time with wise-ass comments. You already wasted enough of my time with your futile and uneducated attempts at belittling the work of others at defining what now supports probably more than 70% of your daily activities by saying they are all ignorant idiots who came up with a perfect solution to a simple problem called "integrity", so I figured I might as well waste some of yours. After all, my time is not free. So there.
I'll look into your schema and see what can be done. I've already begun modifying it as I go along. Would you prefer a set of simple statements to create tables or would you rather alter existing ones? I think altering existing ones would make all hell break loose, but I can try?!
You're the SQL expert. You figure it out. And my opinions in the matter are from real-world experience. I am very, very wary of "database experts" doing "database optimizations". They nearly always fail in the real world. The "database experts" then say "it's not our fault", and the poor RADIUS admins are left to clean up the pieces.
I *don't* have a lot of respect for much of the fascination with SQL referential integrity. It's useful, but just one tool that can be used.
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
I'd be a rather sad person if I called my self _only_ an SQL expert. I tend to think of myself as much more. And if, by "database optimizations" you mean simple and basic database normalization then I shall give up and go have me something to eat and drink down the local. You amaze me. I wish my girlfriend was more like you, then I'd never be bored. An endless source of simple amusements. :-)))) There should be a law that forbids any data structure to call itself "database" until it can meet at least 2nf (out of 5, well 8 really..) In the mean time here's some light reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
can't we just all be friends!!! :-)) On 2010-07-09, at 1:43 PM, predrag balorda wrote:
On 9 July 2010 17:54, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
predrag balorda wrote:
Well, read it, over and over again, until you do.
A useful suggestion, I'm sure.
It is, indeed.
Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc. Sure. That's useful, but not required.
Useful but not required? Interesting postulate. Then all my rdbms professors were and everything I know about rdbms is wrong, I guess....
Practice != theory
Practice == theory, it's just that your Practice != longEnough. Tsk.
I've seen situations where referential integrity can be enforced by the provisioning tools that write to SQL. This gets the benefit of the integrity without the complicating the SQL tables.
And it can give a 2x performance gain. Real world, not theory.
I'm sure that's true. Let's all go find tools to do the work for us since we are brain-dead and can't be arsed to follow some simple rules set-out 50 years beforehand. Because we have "Practice". 1337.
I haven't _seen_ those, per se, but I have _worked_ on some that were 7, 8 and 9 figure commercial solutions with less and more referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema. What are you trying to do? Impress me? Or say that if some XYZ company doesn't do it then it's not worth doing?
Read my response until you understand it.
I did, perfectly. My eyes glazed over.
So if Microsoft doesn't check for buffer underruns and overflows in their code it isn't worth implementing in your FreeRADIUS code? Again, interesting postulate. I'll have to go read up a bit on that.
Ah, yes. If you can't have a rational discussion, invent an irrational one, and accuse the other guy of being irrational.
Proves my point again. Let's all go out and find tools because 7 figure companies don't do it why should we.
svn) repository sometime next week
'git'. 'pufter'
That comment is either ignorance ('git' is a revision control system), or is a deliberate attempt to be an idiot.
Yes, and one more thing to stop the server from keeling over.
Nonsense. The server has *never* died or failed because of a lack of referential integrity in SQL. The server simply returns the data you *told* it to send, instead of the data you *wanted* it to send.
This is *not* a problem with the server. It's a problem with the administrator.
Ah right, another BOFH to keep us amused. Nope, sorry, Simon did it 15 years ago. Been there, done that.
And one more thing to stop the server from replying with crap information. And one more thing to stop people from making mistakes. And one more thing to stop people from loosing account information. And one more thing to make code easier to read and understand. And one more thing to make bug-finding easier. And one more thing to increase performance. And one more thing to reduce database size. And and and....
And one more thing for people to get wrong. And one more step for people to take before they can add data to the tables. And one more performance hit. And... Nope, you lost me there. How does, exactle, referential integrity stop someone from adding data to a table? Huh? How does referential integrity impart a performance hit in a _negative_ sense? Erm, yes, keep taking those pills.
There's a practical thing called "real-world trade-off". Or "cost and benefits". It's not as black & white as you seem to believe.
I know, I practically invented the term. 0 is black, 1 is white. Sorry but that's the world of computer science to you and me. There is no gray area, everything has been invented, you just have to apply it.
I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice. As always, patches are welcome.
Again, I just did!
No.
You posted a simple schema that is *unrelated* to the existing ones. You then waved your hands saying "yeah, someone else can update the schemas to use this one."
And then you get snarky when I ask you to post a more useful patch...
Ok, and now seriously.
Ah... thanks for wasting my time with wise-ass comments. You already wasted enough of my time with your futile and uneducated attempts at belittling the work of others at defining what now supports probably more than 70% of your daily activities by saying they are all ignorant idiots who came up with a perfect solution to a simple problem called "integrity", so I figured I might as well waste some of yours. After all, my time is not free. So there.
I'll look into your schema and see what can be done. I've already begun modifying it as I go along. Would you prefer a set of simple statements to create tables or would you rather alter existing ones? I think altering existing ones would make all hell break loose, but I can try?!
You're the SQL expert. You figure it out. And my opinions in the matter are from real-world experience. I am very, very wary of "database experts" doing "database optimizations". They nearly always fail in the real world. The "database experts" then say "it's not our fault", and the poor RADIUS admins are left to clean up the pieces.
I *don't* have a lot of respect for much of the fascination with SQL referential integrity. It's useful, but just one tool that can be used.
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
I'd be a rather sad person if I called my self _only_ an SQL expert. I tend to think of myself as much more. And if, by "database optimizations" you mean simple and basic database normalization then I shall give up and go have me something to eat and drink down the local. You amaze me. I wish my girlfriend was more like you, then I'd never be bored. An endless source of simple amusements. :-)))) There should be a law that forbids any data structure to call itself "database" until it can meet at least 2nf (out of 5, well 8 really..)
In the mean time here's some light reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
but we are! I was just brushing up on my flame-war skillz! :-) Just idle chit chat really I'm already working on some patches for you guys. No offense meant Sent from moba.hotspot On 9 Jul 2010, at 19:47, Gabriel Blanchard <gabe@teksavvy.ca> wrote:
can't we just all be friends!!! :-))
On 2010-07-09, at 1:43 PM, predrag balorda wrote:
On 9 July 2010 17:54, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
predrag balorda wrote:
Well, read it, over and over again, until you do.
A useful suggestion, I'm sure.
It is, indeed.
Then you can draw all sorts of relations back to this table from radgroupcheck, radgroupreply, usergroup etc. Sure. That's useful, but not required.
Useful but not required? Interesting postulate. Then all my rdbms professors were and everything I know about rdbms is wrong, I guess....
Practice != theory
Practice == theory, it's just that your Practice != longEnough. Tsk.
I've seen situations where referential integrity can be enforced by the provisioning tools that write to SQL. This gets the benefit of the integrity without the complicating the SQL tables.
And it can give a 2x performance gain. Real world, not theory.
I'm sure that's true. Let's all go find tools to do the work for us since we are brain-dead and can't be arsed to follow some simple rules set-out 50 years beforehand. Because we have "Practice". 1337.
I haven't _seen_ those, per se, but I have _worked_ on some that were 7, 8 and 9 figure commercial solutions with less and more referential integrity than the default FreeRADIUS schema. What are you trying to do? Impress me? Or say that if some XYZ company doesn't do it then it's not worth doing?
Read my response until you understand it.
I did, perfectly. My eyes glazed over.
So if Microsoft doesn't check for buffer underruns and overflows in their code it isn't worth implementing in your FreeRADIUS code? Again, interesting postulate. I'll have to go read up a bit on that.
Ah, yes. If you can't have a rational discussion, invent an irrational one, and accuse the other guy of being irrational.
Proves my point again. Let's all go out and find tools because 7 figure companies don't do it why should we.
svn) repository sometime next week
'git'. 'pufter'
That comment is either ignorance ('git' is a revision control system), or is a deliberate attempt to be an idiot.
Yes, and one more thing to stop the server from keeling over.
Nonsense. The server has *never* died or failed because of a lack of referential integrity in SQL. The server simply returns the data you *told* it to send, instead of the data you *wanted* it to send.
This is *not* a problem with the server. It's a problem with the administrator.
Ah right, another BOFH to keep us amused. Nope, sorry, Simon did it 15 years ago. Been there, done that.
And one more thing to stop the server from replying with crap information. And one more thing to stop people from making mistakes. And one more thing to stop people from loosing account information. And one more thing to make code easier to read and understand. And one more thing to make bug-finding easier. And one more thing to increase performance. And one more thing to reduce database size. And and and....
And one more thing for people to get wrong. And one more step for people to take before they can add data to the tables. And one more performance hit. And... Nope, you lost me there. How does, exactle, referential integrity stop someone from adding data to a table? Huh? How does referential integrity impart a performance hit in a _negative_ sense? Erm, yes, keep taking those pills.
There's a practical thing called "real-world trade-off". Or "cost and benefits". It's not as black & white as you seem to believe.
I know, I practically invented the term. 0 is black, 1 is white. Sorry but that's the world of computer science to you and me. There is no gray area, everything has been invented, you just have to apply it.
I'm probably talking crap here as I'll be switching to LDAP soon enough for all this to go away, but still. It'd be nice. As always, patches are welcome.
Again, I just did!
No.
You posted a simple schema that is *unrelated* to the existing ones. You then waved your hands saying "yeah, someone else can update the schemas to use this one."
And then you get snarky when I ask you to post a more useful patch...
Ok, and now seriously.
Ah... thanks for wasting my time with wise-ass comments. You already wasted enough of my time with your futile and uneducated attempts at belittling the work of others at defining what now supports probably more than 70% of your daily activities by saying they are all ignorant idiots who came up with a perfect solution to a simple problem called "integrity", so I figured I might as well waste some of yours. After all, my time is not free. So there.
I'll look into your schema and see what can be done. I've already begun modifying it as I go along. Would you prefer a set of simple statements to create tables or would you rather alter existing ones? I think altering existing ones would make all hell break loose, but I can try?!
You're the SQL expert. You figure it out. And my opinions in the matter are from real-world experience. I am very, very wary of "database experts" doing "database optimizations". They nearly always fail in the real world. The "database experts" then say "it's not our fault", and the poor RADIUS admins are left to clean up the pieces.
I *don't* have a lot of respect for much of the fascination with SQL referential integrity. It's useful, but just one tool that can be used.
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
I'd be a rather sad person if I called my self _only_ an SQL expert. I tend to think of myself as much more. And if, by "database optimizations" you mean simple and basic database normalization then I shall give up and go have me something to eat and drink down the local. You amaze me. I wish my girlfriend was more like you, then I'd never be bored. An endless source of simple amusements. :-)))) There should be a law that forbids any data structure to call itself "database" until it can meet at least 2nf (out of 5, well 8 really..)
In the mean time here's some light reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
On 9 July 2010 22:32, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
We clearly have nothing to learn from you, so I don't see why someone of your talents would be wasting your time on this list.
Alan DeKok. -
Oh it's one of those deep thought moments, isn't it? Clearly _you_ haven't as you seem to be done with your learning. People with encumbered social skills usually do think that they know all there is to know so they tend to give up early in their lives. However unproductive that may seem. However, I sincerely believe FreeRADIUS doesn't mean _you_ alone, so I'll gladly offer my talents to the other 20-odd thousand people using it who are more than willing to learn. But then your "this is an open-source project and you can submit patches" comment at the very beginning of your trivial post did provision for this. I adore those "I Post, Therefore I Am" moments, I do. Pfft. Pele p.s. genetic mutations are a bitch.
In all due respect Alan I do think that you do somewhat have an attitude and usually take others input like crap. I do understand that you get very stupid questions most of the time and that can get to you. Pele: Ease off, it's obviously getting nowhere is there no point in trowing more fuel to the fire. If you want that feature that bad, why don't you just code it yourself. It's open source for a reason. Now that it's all settled....sit down and have a beer. I know I'm up to it. ________________________________________ From: freeradius-devel-bounces+gabriel=teksavvy.com@lists.freeradius.org [freeradius-devel-bounces+gabriel=teksavvy.com@lists.freeradius.org] On Behalf Of predrag balorda [predrag.balorda@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 5:57 PM To: FreeRadius developers mailing list Subject: Re: sql module and radgroup... On 9 July 2010 22:32, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
We clearly have nothing to learn from you, so I don't see why someone of your talents would be wasting your time on this list.
Alan DeKok. -
Oh it's one of those deep thought moments, isn't it? Clearly _you_ haven't as you seem to be done with your learning. People with encumbered social skills usually do think that they know all there is to know so they tend to give up early in their lives. However unproductive that may seem. However, I sincerely believe FreeRADIUS doesn't mean _you_ alone, so I'll gladly offer my talents to the other 20-odd thousand people using it who are more than willing to learn. But then your "this is an open-source project and you can submit patches" comment at the very beginning of your trivial post did provision for this. I adore those "I Post, Therefore I Am" moments, I do. Pfft. Pele p.s. genetic mutations are a bitch. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
Gabriel Blanchard wrote:
In all due respect Alan I do think that you do somewhat have an attitude and usually take others input like crap.
That's a common misunderstanding, unfortunately. Go read my first response on this thread. There is *nothing* in it that could be construed as "taking input like crap". The *response* to my message was name calling and cursing. When I pointed out that this wasn't nice, the response was more flames. And you blame *me*?
Pele: Ease off, it's obviously getting nowhere is there no point in trowing more fuel to the fire. If you want that feature that bad, why don't you just code it yourself. It's open source for a reason.
Which is *exactly* my first response. Why is it OK for you to say that, and not me? Why aren't you taking Pele to task for his name calling and cursing at me? Alan DeKok.
On 10 July 2010 02:59, Gabriel Blanchard <gabe@teksavvy.ca> wrote:
In all due respect Alan I do think that you do somewhat have an attitude and usually take others input like crap. I do understand that you get very stupid questions most of the time and that can get to you.
Pele: Ease off, it's obviously getting nowhere is there no point in trowing more fuel to the fire. If you want that feature that bad, why don't you just code it yourself. It's open source for a reason.
Now that it's all settled....sit down and have a beer. I know I'm up to it.
How right! I did, quite a few last night.
participants (4)
-
Alan DeKok -
Gabriel Blanchard -
pele -
predrag balorda